Order 26.08.2014 - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Xerox copy of the judgment passed in the suit produced in, Court be kept on record. In this writ petition, the petitioner have challenged the order dated 14.5.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deogarh in Civil Suit No. 26 of 2012 rejecting their application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners are the widow and minor children of the one 'Tanu Patra @ Tuna Patra'. They have filed the suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the husband of plaintiff No. 1 has been missing since more than seven years. He was serving as a senior Clerk in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Angul Branch. On 12.1.2004 he had been to Divisional Office of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cuttack on official work and did not return to his house. The plaintiff in the suit seeks declaration of status and consequential relief i.e., the service benefit of the said employee entitled to by the family members. The Divisional Manager and Branch Manager of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cuttack Division and Angul Branch were impleaded as defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The suit was contested by them by filing written statement. The contested defendants denied the fact that on 12.1.2014. 'Tanu Patra' had not gone to Cuttack on official work. He was absent unauthorisedly from the Branch Office since 3.12.2003. Due to his long unauthorized absent, departmental proceeding was initiated against him and as the registered letter issued to him returned undelivered with remark "long absent", he was removed from service vide order dated 10.3.2005. It is also appeared from the document annexed to this application that petitioner No. 1 filed W.P.(Crl.) No. 328 of 2005 before this Court impleading defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as party. This Court while disposing of the said W.P.(Crl.) on 25.7.2006 directed the concerned police to take all effective steps to trace out the husband of the petitioner. As no steps were taken, as directed by the Court, the petitioner again filed W.P. (C) 27899 of 2011, which was disposed of on 2.11.2011 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the suit, which was decreed in their favour. As no steps were taken, as directed by the Court, the petitioner again filed W.P. (C) 27899 of 2011, which was disposed of on 2.11.2011 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the suit, which was decreed in their favour. It also reveals from the copy of the above two writ petitions that name of the husband of present petitioner No. 1 was reflected in the cause title as 'Tuna Patra.' However, the name of 'Tuna Patra @ Tanu Patra' was not in dispute in the suit by the contesting defendant Nos. 4 and 5 rather they have admitted the fact that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 was an employee of the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and the inadvertent mistake the name spell out in different applications does not extinguish the right of the plaintiffs to get the relief claimed in the suit, which was decreed in their favour. Rather the inadvertent mistake in typing the name in the cause title can be corrected as provided under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The evidence of the plaintiff No. 1 on record should have been read in consonance with the said fact as no cross-examination being made by the defendants that the plaintiff No. 1 is not the wife of the said employee. Accordingly, the impugned order is an error apparent on the face of record and this Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India sets aside the order 14.5.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Deogarh in Civil Suit No. 26 of 2012 and directs the Court below to correct the judgment and decree accordingly on production of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.